The stars are aligned for Barack Obama’s re-election in November 2012. He won’t join Jimmy Carter to be the second Democrat in 120 years to lose a second term.

Five things are playing in Obama’s favor.

First, the Republicans -- driven by their most conservative members in Congress -- will face a primary with many candidates who will advance harsh ideological positions. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump and others might as well be on the Democratic National Committee payroll. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s reverse Robin Hood plan to cut more than $6 trillion in spending over a decade will provide the outrage, stoked by a sitting president possessed of verbal discipline.

The field of Republican weaklings is already getting smaller. This week, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour dropped out of the race for the presidency.

Second, the Republican governors’ attacks on unions are turning off the swing voters and Reagan Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Imagine the voter reaction if millions of workers lose their right to collective bargaining, and the impact that cuts in benefits and wages will have on their lives.

Democratic governors, such as Jerry Brown of California, Pat Quinn of Illinois and Andrew Cuomo of New York, are cutting -- but not taking away -- workers’ bargaining rights. This is a politically useful contrast for Obama. Reagan Democrats, who have won many elections for the Republicans, are a big plus for Obama in the contested states.
No Challenge

Third, no candidates are emerging to challenge Obama in the primaries. A discussion of Obama’s forgotten campaign promises and record would have public support among Democrats. Even so, the liberal base has nowhere to go to send a message about war, free-trade agreements, raising the minimum wage or union membership.

Nor does a third party or independent candidacy pose a threat, given the winner-take-all, two-party system.

Fourth, Obama has neutered much of the big corporate lobby’s zeal to defeat him. He decided from the beginning not to prosecute executives from Wall Street banking, brokerage and rating firms. Multinational companies are pleased with Obama’s position on trade, on not disturbing the many corporate subsidies, handouts and giveaways, such as the corn-ethanol subsidy.
Shelters for Wealthy

By 2014, Obamacare will deliver some 30 million subsidized customers to health-insurance companies. The auto industry is forever grateful for its bailout. Obama hasn’t moved on corporate-tax reform, tax shelters for the wealthy, or the preferential capital-gains tax treatment on the 20 percent service fees of hedge fund managers. Don’t forget last December when Obama agreed to extended tax cuts for the rich while the budget deficit gets larger.

The military-industrial complex about which President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell address 50 years ago, is still uncontrollable, leading departing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to express serious concerns. Obama has even surprised George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and his cohort of neocons, who can scarcely believe how militarily aggressive Obama has been on just about every move that liberals used to call impeachable offenses by former President George W. Bush.
Big Business

Then there’s Jeffrey Immelt, the chairman and chief executive officer of General Electric Co., who can attest to Obama’s outreach to big business. GE Capital was bailed out. The company effectively paid no federal income taxes on $14.2 billion in 2010 profit and received a $3.2 billion benefit. Immelt got a $15.5 million pay raise. And in January, Obama appointed him chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness while letting him stay as head of a company receiving many government contracts and having regulation problems with the federal authorities. The corporate state doesn’t get much better than that.

Fifth, since the Republicans have little to offer by way of creating jobs, Obama need only show improvement in macroeconomic indicators, as Ronald Reagan did in 1983-1984, and proceed to showcase all the tax breaks he has signed into law for big and small businesses. Poor Americans who continue to bear the brunt of the recession are hardly going to vote Republican. It will be easy for Obama, with his oratorical skills, to paint the Republican-controlled House of Representatives as obstructionist, especially as he develops an economic plan for his second term.
Black Swans

There remain the Black Swans, events that defy prediction as those in Japan and the Middle East have shown. Handling them with firmness and calmness from the White House is what most people expect of a president. Obama will surely not repeat Bush’s mistakes after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Obama is averse to conflict with corporate power and disarmingly expedient in compromising with Republicans, leaving the latter to argue largely among themselves. The political duopoly lets the tactical Obama use the Bully Pulpit to his political advantage, even if his principles perish. Obama can look forward to four more years in 2012.

That's about as "apples and oranges" as you can get. Which of the current or potential candidates is the figurative Bill Clinton to take his place? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to promote Obama for 2012. But who even has a chance? Where's the charismatic guy from Arkansas with the likeable drawl and goofy smile that's going to rain on this parade. I'm just not seeing it and the GOP is drowning themselves.

Wed May 04, 2011 8:50 am

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

This election will be about the economy and the Republicans' claims that it can only be fixed via austerity. Meanwhile the Democrats have a more solid economical plan but it's far more difficult to communicate that to voters.

Also, much of Nader's claims about Obama being pro-business don't add up to any support from businesses. At least none that he would've gotten otherwise. If a business is going to support Obama's reelection bid they will do so on the basis that they think his policies will be better than the Republican contender's. So, while one can look at his policies to date and say that he's be fairly pro-business [which, uh... what did you expect him to be during a recession?] any Republican need only promise to be even more pro-business.

Some of the criticisms Nader lobbied against Obama also are things that Obama does not have direct control over. Sure, he could have taken up the bully pulpit better and forced a few issues. When you look at some of the things that Obama does control, like the Justice Department and the EPA, it is absolutely clear that things are better than they would be under McCain or any current Republican challenger. Some of these things are anti-business that any Republican would immediately change. Yet another incentive for businesses to support Republicans.

And they will. We'll see more advertising dollars spent in favor of Republicans this election than ever before.

Plus, the President's approval ratings are nowhere near where they need to long term. Yes, he's received a bounce from OBL. That will almost certainly wane in 19 months. If good things don't start happening economically he'll be in the dangerous mid-40's on election day.

So, combine that with what Icarus said, and you have a race that is absolutely up in the air. This is probably the worst argument Nader's put forth in a long time, there's no reason for him to be so clueless. Since Nader is smart and should recognize all the problems with his argument, I'm going to assume that it was nothing more than a backhanded article written to take a stereotypical (for him) cheap shot at conventional politics.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:01 am

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

jakethesnake wrote: That's about as "apples and oranges" as you can get. Which of the current or potential candidates is the figurative Bill Clinton to take his place? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to promote Obama for 2012. But who even has a chance? Where's the charismatic guy from Arkansas with the likeable drawl and goofy smile that's going to rain on this parade. I'm just not seeing it and the GOP is drowning themselves.

In spring '91, Bill Clinton wasn't the figurative Bill Clinton either. If anything, the figurative Bill Clinton, many thought, was Jerry Brown. The real difference between this situation and '92 isn't the lack of a figurative Bill Clinton (who only got about 42% of the vote) but the lack of a figurative Ross Perot (Bloomberg) but the point was that you can't call these things so far ahead of time. George H.W. Bush was far more liked after Desert Storm (and in general) than Obama is liked after killing Bin Laden. But the economy (stupid!) did him in. I don't see how these are really that dissimilar.

(You're joking about the lack of a charismatic Arkansan, right?)

Wed May 04, 2011 9:06 am

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

jakethesnake wrote: That's about as "apples and oranges" as you can get. Which of the current or potential candidates is the figurative Bill Clinton to take his place? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to promote Obama for 2012. But who even has a chance? Where's the charismatic guy from Arkansas with the likeable drawl and goofy smile that's going to rain on this parade. I'm just not seeing it and the GOP is drowning themselves.

What you need to realize is that Clinton was a dark horse. Read these two articles:

Clinton came out of nowhere. Why? Because the front runners in the field dropped out due to Bush I's seemingly impervious approval numbers. Then the public became upset with Bush I and he lost rather than Clinton winning.

If the economy is as tattered by next November as it remains now then Obama's chances of winning are less than 50%. His approval will surely tell.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:09 am

futuristxen

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19377
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt

The achievements are starting to pile up on Obama's side of the ledger, that's for sure. He's got things now that both sides of the aisle can respect.

They won't be able to run much national security game on Obama in 2012 at this point. Unless we have another 9/11 between then and now.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:14 am

crash

Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5457
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption

gas prices.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:15 am

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

futuristxen wrote: They won't be able to run much national security game on Obama in 2012 at this point. Unless we have another 9/11 between then and now.

I don't think this was ever their game plan. It'd be pretty tough to criticize Obama's national security performance from a Republican standpoint, even before OBL's death, he's done so very little different from Bush in that respect. If anything, his national security policy has served to weaken his base support. Aside from the economy, the disaffection of his base is his biggest problem. I can't imagine nearly as many volunteers at this point.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:23 am

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

I do realize that Clinton was a dark horse. I guess that was my point. The current GOP candidates have seemingly no chance. This isn't like '92, the GOP candidates aren't going to roll over and let a dark horse ride through. They *all* just flat out suck as potential presidents, but is Trump the kind of guy who is just going to roll over and let someone else #win? No, he's the kind of fool that will drag an entire party down with him. Obama is strategically gaining momentum, and he's starting early. At the current rate of recovery, even if it is a bit slow, it still is recovering. Primaries are 7 months away, and the GOP hasn't made a move. Read my lips: they better take a note from the '92 playbook and latch onto some quotable atrocity quickly, else drown in mediocrity. I don't think gas prices are going to fit the bill.

Wed May 04, 2011 9:41 am

redball

Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6877
Location: Northern New Jersey

It's not Trump you should worry about, it's Romney and Huckabee (or even Christie). They have weaknesses, sure, but they're far more electable. If Trump wins the primary, which is looking less likely now that Obama has removed his big racist talking point, then it's in the bag for Obama. Assuming that Trump is running knowing he's not electable, I'm guessing that his political purpose is to provide a big name in place of Palin who can run so far to the right that it will make Romney/Huckabee look to be centrist so that they can try to paint the President as a radical Liberal.

Also, Haley Barbour was never a real contender. He's less electable than Trump. The attention paid to him was undue his standing. His primary opponents would have decimated him, let alone the President.

If gas prices next summer hover around $5/gallon like they seem to be headed for this summer then they will certainly play a large role in the Presidential race. That's a big problem for the President because he will take some of the blame regardless and Democrats don't have a strong narrative on lowering gas prices, in fact their answer is to try to reduce consumption... not likely to resonate with voters in middle America.

I just want to temper all of this by saying that these are problems Obama will have to face and strategies the Republicans are likely to use. That doesn't mean I think Obama will lose, but I'm less confident that he will win than I would've been for the generic Democrat this time four years ago.

I'm pretty sure Romney can't win due to his religion, and ties to liberal Massachusetts. And Huckabee is no Bill Clinton, there are no new developments for either of these candidates that will put them ahead of Obama, they sucked in 2008, they still suck now.

In my wildest fantasies, Kucinich runs as R just to get on the bill and sweeps the election.

Wed May 04, 2011 10:15 am

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

redball wrote: It's not Trump you should worry about, it's Romney and Huckabee (or even Christie). They have weaknesses, sure, but they're far more electable. If Trump wins the primary, which is looking less likely now that Obama has removed his big racist talking point, then it's in the bag for Obama. Assuming that Trump is running knowing he's not electable, I'm guessing that his political purpose is to provide a big name in place of Palin who can run so far to the right that it will make Romney/Huckabee look to be centrist so that they can try to paint the President as a radical Liberal.

Right. This was the big benefit of releasing the birth certificate: it doesn't allow Mitt Romney to be all "I'm no CRAZY. I think the president was born in the United States!"

Wed May 04, 2011 10:19 am

jakethesnakeguy who cried about wrestling being real

Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one

But he CAN'T say "I'm no CRAZY". He's a fucking Mormon! Even other Christians think he's crazy, let alone other religions. The only thing he has going for him is the fact that the first NH primary takes place... near Massachusetts.

Last edited by jakethesnake on Wed May 04, 2011 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Wed May 04, 2011 10:43 am

icarus502kung-pwn master

Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor

jakethesnake wrote: But he CAN'T say "I'm no CRAZY". He's a fucking Mormon! Even other Christians think he's crazy, let alone other religions.

I thought so too four years ago, but they're willing to let shit slide. The Mormons have done a bang-up job over the past few years convincing Evangelicals that they're basically a purpler form of their lavender. Defeating gay marriage in California went a long way.

Wed May 04, 2011 10:46 am

Jump to:

Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:03 pm